what makes a theory 'social democratic'?

From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 15:42:24 EST

At 09:41 04/12/2003 -0800, Rakesh wrote:

>So Glyn is a Sraffian? OK.  Isn't he like Bhaduri and Marglin an
>exponent of a social democratic reform of capitalism, a creation of a
>cooperative capitalism? Again Bhaduri is to be admired because he
>clarifies that the synthesis of Sraffa-Kalecki implies social
>democratic politics, not Marxian politics. The question is, then,
>whether he is correct that the synthesis logically and necessarily
>points in that political direction rather than a Marxian one. And I
>think that he is. Now Henwood, Devine and many others say that social
>democracy cannot work because full employment will not be politically
>tolerated. But I already responded to this a long time ago in reply
>to Allin. This point only implies a need for a corporatism by which
>wage demands can be restrained in the approach to full
>employment--wage demands would not have to be crushed, only
>restrained. Indeed this is exactly what Pollin calls for on the basis
>of the success of the Swedish social democratic party in achieving
>full employment and low inflation for forty years. He calls for
>social democratic corporatism, and that seems indeed to be the
>political implication of the Sraffian/Kaleckian synthesis. At least
>that's what Bhaduri thinks follows politically  from the S-K

What makes a theory (which is to be distinguished from the expressed
politics of the one holding the theory) 'social democratic' rather than
         in solidarity,
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 00:00:01 EST